DETAILED ACTION
The following action is in response to application 19/004,976 filed on December 20, 2024.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 13-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
With regard to claim 13, the limitations are already claimed in claim 9 (to which claim 13 depends on). It is suggested that applicant cancel claim 13 and change the dependency of claim 14 to be on claim 12. Claims 14-16 depend on claim 13.
With regard to claim 17, on line 2, the limitations of “a protective mat” and “a truck bed” have already been introduced on line 1. It is suggested applicant replace “a protective mat” with “the protective mat,” and “a truck bed” with “the truck bed.” Claims 18-20 depend on claim 17.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-3 and 9-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Justice (US 4875730). With regard to claim 1, Justice teaches a protective mat 50 for a truck bed 4 comprising: a removable shaped cutout 100; wherein said removable shaped cutout comprises one or more interlocking tabs 106/104/102 around the exterior edge of said shaped cutout, and wherein said protective mat further comprises an opening 54 for receiving said removable shaped cutout. With regard to claim 2, Justice teaches the mat, wherein said opening further comprises one or more shaped indentations (left and right of 58/56) around the edge of said opening 54. With regard to claim 3, Justice teaches the mat, wherein the number of said one or more interlocking tabs (three) corresponds to the number of said one or more shaped indentations (three; Fig. 2). With regard to claim 9, Justice teaches a protective mat 50 for a truck bed 4 comprising: a shaped cutout 100 having an exterior edge around said shaped cutout, wherein said shaped cutout comprises one or more interlocking tabs 106/104/102 around said exterior edge of said shaped cutout, wherein said protective mat further comprises an opening 54 for receiving said shaped cutout, wherein said shaped cutout is rectangular in shape (Fig. 2), and wherein said shaped cutout is connected to said protective mat along one edge of said shaped cutout (Fig. 2). With regard to claim 10, Justice teaches the device, wherein said opening 54 further comprises one or more shaped indentations (left and right of 58/56) around three edges of said opening (indentations connect with left, bottom and right sides). With regard to claim 11, Justice teaches the device, wherein the number of said one or more interlocking tabs (three) corresponds to the number of said one or more shaped indentations (three; Fig. 2).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 17-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Justice (US 4875730) in view of Greggs (US 20170036617). With regard to claim 17, Justice teaches
a protective mat 50 for a truck bed 4 comprising: the protective mat 50 configured to be placed in the truck bed 4, wherein said protective mat 50 is of sufficient size and shape to cover the entirety of the bottom of said truck bed 4 (Fig. 2); a shaped cutout 180 positioned between truck bed wheel wells and above the truck bed 4, wherein said shaped cutout comprises one or more interlocking tabs 106/104/102around the exterior edge of said shaped cutout; wherein said protective mat further comprises at least one opening 64, wherein said opening further comprises one or more shaped indentations (left and right of 68/66) around the interior edge of said opening, wherein said one or more interlocking tabs correspond to said one or more shaped indentations (Fig. 2). Justice lacks the specific teaching wherein the cutout is position above at least one towing connection point located in the truck bed. Greggs teaches a similar vehicle comprising a truck bed 10 and at least one towing connection 18 located between wheel wells of the truck bed (Fig. 1). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill prior to the effective filing date of the present invention to modify Justice to employ a towing connection positioned below the shaped cutout (between the wheel wells) with reasonable expectation for success in order to provide additional towing capabilities for the truck. With regard to claim 19, Justice and Greggs teach the mat, wherein said opening 64 is of sufficient size (Fig. 2) to provide access to said at least one towing connection point 18 (Fig. 1).
Claim(s) 4-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Justice as applied to claim 3 above, and further in view of Kelter (US 7017977). With regard to claim 4, Justice teaches the mat, but lacks the specific teaching wherein said removable shaped cutout further comprises one or more finger holes. Kelter teaches a similar vehicle comprising: a removable shape cutout 30, an opening for receiving said cutout (Fig. 2), and wherein said removable shaped cutout 30 further comprise one or more finger holes (@62). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the present invention to modify Justice to employ one or more finger holes in further view of Kelter with reasonable expectation for success in order to provide easier areas for gripping the cutouts. With regard to claim 5, Justice teaches the met, wherein said removable shaped cutout 100 is rectangular in shape (Fig. 2), wherein said removable shaped cutout further comprises four corners (Fig. 2). With regard to claim 6, Justice and Kelter teach the mat, wherein said one or more finger holes (@62) are located in one or more corners of said removable shaped cutout (Fig. 3).
Claim(s) 12-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Justice as applied to claim 9 above, and further in view of Kelter (US 7017977). With regard to claim 12, Justice teaches the mat, but lacks the specific teaching wherein said removable shaped cutout further comprises one or more finger holes. Kelter teaches a similar vehicle comprising: a removable shape cutout 30, an opening for receiving said cutout (Fig. 2), and wherein said removable shaped cutout 30 further comprise one or more finger holes (@62). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the present invention to modify Justice to employ one or more finger holes in further view of Kelter with reasonable expectation for success in order to provide easier areas for gripping the cutouts. With regard to claim 13, Justice teaches the met, wherein said removable shaped cutout 100 is rectangular in shape (Fig. 2). With regard to claim 14, Justice and Kelter teach the mat, wherein said one or more finger holes (@62) are located in one or more corners of said removable shaped cutout (Fig. 3).
Claim(s) 7-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Justice and Kelter as applied to claim 6 above, and further in view of Haack (US 6015178). With regard to claim 7, Justice teaches the mt, but lacks the specific teaching wherein said protective mat further comprises one or more textured patterns on the surface of said protective mat. Haack teaches a similar vehicle comprising: a protective mat 20 for a truck bed, a cutout 56, an opening (Fig. 2), and wherein the mat comprises one or more textured patterns on the surface of said protective mat (Fig. 1). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the present invention to modify Justice to employ one or more textured patterns on the surface of said protective mat in view of Haack with reasonable expectation for success in order to provide a means for preventing items from sliding laterally. With regard to claim 8, Justice, Kelter and Haack teach the mat, wherein said one or more textured patterns comprises a series of spaced grooves across the surface of said protective mat (Fig. 1).
Claim(s) 15-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Justice and Kelter as applied to claim 14 above, and further in view of Haack (US 6015178). With regard to claim 15, Justice teaches the mt, but lacks the specific teaching wherein said protective mat further comprises one or more textured patterns on the surface of said protective mat. Haack teaches a similar vehicle comprising: a protective mat 20 for a truck bed, a cutout 56, an opening (Fig. 2), and wherein the mat comprises one or more textured patterns on the surface of said protective mat (Fig. 1). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the present invention to modify Justice to employ one or more textured patterns on the surface of said protective mat in view of Haack with reasonable expectation for success in order to provide a means for preventing items from sliding laterally. With regard to claim 16, Justice, Kelter and Haack teach the mat, wherein said one or more textured patterns comprises a series of spaced grooves across the surface of said protective mat (Fig. 1).
Claim(s) 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Justice and Greggs as applied to claim 18 above, and further in view of Haack (US 6015178). With regard to claim 19, Justice teaches the mt, but lacks the specific teaching wherein said protective mat further comprises one or more textured patterns on the surface of said protective mat. Haack teaches a similar vehicle comprising: a protective mat 20 for a truck bed, a cutout 56, an opening (Fig. 2), and wherein the mat comprises one or more textured patterns on the surface of said protective mat (Fig. 1). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the present invention to modify Justice to employ one or more textured patterns on the surface of said protective mat in view of Haack with reasonable expectation for success in order to provide a means for preventing items from sliding laterally. With regard to claim 8, Justice, Greggs and Haack teach the mat, wherein said one or more textured patterns comprises a series of spaced grooves across the surface of said protective mat (Fig. 1).
Suggestions for Applicant
As shown in Figure 2 of Justice ‘730 below, Justice teaches 3 interlocking tabs 106/104/102 and a corresponding number of shaped indentations around the opening (connecting around the tabs (left and right of 58/56). These indentations are part of the left, bottom, and right side of the opens as well.
PNG
media_image1.png
336
282
media_image1.png
Greyscale
It is suggested applicant try to use claim language to differentiate between the corresponding indentations and tabs of Fig. 6 (the broader of the embodiments, but still generic to the other species).
PNG
media_image2.png
496
436
media_image2.png
Greyscale
One suggestion would be to claim interlocking tabs on at least two different edges of the opening (i.e. left and right sides) that correspond with indentations on at least two different edges of the cutout (i.e. left and right sides). The only parts of Justice that could correspond with interlocking tabs on the opening would be 58/56, and those are only located along one edge (the bottom).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Justice (US 5456514) has been cited to show a similar mat 42 for a truck bed 14 comprising: cutouts 46/50/54/58/62.
McGory (US 10766322) has been cited to show a similar vehicle comprising a cutout 110 with tabs (for the snap fit; Fig. 15B; Col. 10, lines 8-9), the cutout provided above a towing connection 42, a textured bed (Col. 10, lines 20-24) and finger holes 190.
FACSIMILE TRANSMISSION
Submission of your response by facsimile transmission is encouraged. The central facsimile number is (571) 273-8300. Recognizing the fact that reducing cycle time in the processing and examination of patent applications will effectively increase a patent's term, it is to your benefit to submit responses by facsimile transmission whenever permissible. Such submission will place the response directly in our examining group's hands and will eliminate Post Office processing and delivery time as well as the PTO's mail room processing and delivery time. For a complete list of correspondence not permitted by facsimile transmission, see MPEP 502.01. In general, most responses and/or amendments not requiring a fee, as well as those requiring a fee but charging such fee to a deposit account, can be submitted by facsimile transmission. Responses requiring a fee which applicant is paying by check should not be submitting by facsimile transmission separately from the check.
Responses submitted by facsimile transmission should include a Certificate of Transmission (MPEP 512). The following is an example of the format the certification might take:
I hereby certify that this correspondence is being facsimile transmitted to the Patent and Trademark Office (Fax No. (571) 273-8300) on ____________ (Date)
Typed or printed name of person signing this certificate: _____________________________________
_____________________________________
(Signature)
If your response is submitted by facsimile transmission, you are hereby reminded that the original should be retained as evidence of authenticity (37 CFR 1.4 and MPEP 502.02). Please do not separately mail the original or another copy unless required by the Patent and Trademark Office. Submission of the original response or a follow-up copy of the response after your response has been transmitted by facsimile will only cause further unnecessary delays in the processing of your application; duplicate responses where fees are charged to a deposit account may result in those fees being charged twice.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ROGER L PANG whose telephone number is (571)272-7096. The examiner can normally be reached M-TH 05:30-16:00.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Jacob Scott can be reached at 571-270-3415. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/ROGER L PANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3655
/ROGER L. PANG/
Examiner
Art Unit 3655B
July 28, 2026
Prosecution Insights